AbstractNot one person can answer a question about the "exclusionary rule" until they know what is stated in the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule go hand in hand. The Fourth Amendment was put into the constitution to limit on the actions of overzealous officers (Peak, 2006). Then, one must understand what is meant by "probable cause." Armed with this information, we can discuss the definition of the exclusionary rule and some of its history. Also, we will list some of the advantages and disadvantages of the exclusionary rule and ask the question should it be abandoned.

The Exclusionary Rule

The Forth Amendment has been under attack and why? Some people believe it is unjust and should be abolished, yet others think that it should just be amended. Will these changes solve the problem? Not likely, there will always be someone who is not happy with the way things are. The reason they are all upset is due to what is in the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule.

The exclusionary rule is defined as follows; the exclusionary rule requires that all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment be excluded from the governments use in a criminal trial (Peak, 2006).

The Fourth Amendment states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Peak, 2006)."

The exclusionary rule was intended to prevent and or limit the extreme behavior of the police. It is there to protect the privacy of the citizens. It the police don't have a warrant then they have no right under the law to search you home or property. Then there is probable cause, with probable cause it gives the office a little leeway to search without a warrant.

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...The reason we have rules in life are simple, to keep order when there is chaos and to guide our behavior in a way that is acceptable by society’s standards. The reason we have laws and procedures to carry out those laws are simple as well, to keep the government from infringing on its citizen’s constitutional rights. If the government was to rid itself of the exclusionaryrule, then it has the potential to be infringing on its citizens rights. The government could essentially walk into anyone who is suspected of a crime’s house and seize whatever they feel is evidence. The exclusionaryrule is an important constitutional right within U.S. legal system, but just as it is with most of the legal systems the exclusionaryrule is not without its flaws.
The exclusionaryrule mandates courts to ban the introduction of evidence that is either incriminating or not that was obtained illegal. The exclusionaryrule prevents evidence that was obtained by bad methods to be used in a court of law, no matter how incriminating the evidence is to the defendant. The bad methods refer to the actions of the investigators and the procedures that the investigators took while obtaining the evidence in question. There are five possible constitutional rights that the investigator could have violated that fall under the...

...ExclusionaryRule Evaluation
Criminal Procedure/CJA 364
University of Phoenix
ExclusionaryRule Evaluation
The exclusionaryrule is an important doctrine supporting the ideals of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment provides people under the jurisdiction of the American criminal justice system protections from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment also delineates the methods members of the criminal justice system may obtain information via judicially sanctioned search warrants based on probable cause. The exclusionaryrule exempts some evidence even when the seizure or location of the evidence may violate the Fourth Amendment. The rule also provides some benefits and detriments for members of the criminal justice system when gathering evidence or prosecuting offenders. However, the exclusionaryrule is an important doctrine to members of the criminal justice system demonstrating a means to introduce evidence in the furtherance of justice.
The exclusionaryrule prevents evidence obtained by the criminal justice system in violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search or seizure is not allowable to prove the guilt of an accused person in a criminal prosecution. However, the primary purpose of the...

...﻿
The Evolution of the ExclusionaryRule
A Historical Analysis And How It Stand Today
April Herald
Criminal Justice
Abstract
From historical analysis, this work highlights key cases that have influenced the evolution of the Exclusionaryrule and where it stands today. The purpose of this paper is to inform people of the importance of our constitutional rights, especially the fourth amendment when concerning a criminal prosecution. The exclusionaryrule is set in place to ensure justice be served and the accused are treated equally. If you have ever found yourself with a criminal status you should be sure that you were or are treated equal and that you know the law. There has been numerous cases that can be used to show the importance of the exclusionaryrule were the prosecuted had their constitutional right violated by the court using illegal evidence, one example is Silverthorne Lumber Co v. United States. The exclusionaryrule helps enforce these rights and has a long history. Also, these cases have helped make sure that our constitutional rights are being protected on a daily bases. The article ends supporting the success of the rule working as a deterrent.
Movies and television have portrayed the image of the police as having the authority to search the home of a suspect for criminal...

...unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The interpretation and execution of the Fourth amendment in the courtroom however, is decided by the Supreme Court in an attempt to find a fair balance between individual and community interests. The exclusionaryrule for example, is a Supreme Court precedent that holds police departments responsible for seizing incriminating information according to constitutional specifications of due process, or the information will not be allowed as evidence in a criminal trial. The question that arises in turn, is whether the exclusionaryrule has handcuffed the abilities to effectively protect the community by the police, or if it has actually resulted in a positive police reform which needs to be expanded upon.
My opinion is that although the exclusionaryrule may significantly slow down the police department’s investigation and arrest process, it is a necessary “evil” in order to protect the rights of the individuals who in fact should not have their homes searched. I do however, agree that without the restrictions of the exclusionaryrule police departments would be able to do their job a lot faster and more effectively, without having to worry about first getting a search warrant or after getting “slam dunk” evidence, having to see a case...

...﻿EXCLUSIONARYRULE
§ 7.01 General Rule
Evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in a criminal trial against the defendant.
§ 7.02 Exceptions to the ExclusionaryRule
[A] Non-Trial Criminal Proceedings
Illegally seized evidence may constitutionally be introduced in a variety of non-trial criminal proceedings including: grand jury proceedings, preliminary hearings, bail proceedings, sentencing, and proceedings to revoke parole.
[B] Impeachment at Trial
A prosecutor may introduce evidence obtained from a defendant in violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights for the limited purpose of impeaching the defendant's: (1) direct testimony; or (2) answers to legitimate questions put to the defendant during cross-examination. However, such evidence may not be used to impeach other defense witnesses. James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990).
[C] “Good Faith” Exception
[1] In General
Evidence obtained by a police officer in reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently found invalid may be admissible. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). It is necessary that a reasonably well-trained officer would have believed that the warrant was valid. This has come to be known as the “good faith” or Leon exception to the exclusionaryrule. Many states, however, have rejected this exception....

...Contemporary Issues Paper: The ExclusionaryRule
Jennifer Howell
November 6, 2010
The ExclusionaryRule and Its Exceptions
Introduction: The ExclusionaryRule
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement personnel. (US Const. amend. IV) Though the Amendment “forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, it does not provide a mechanism for prevention or a remedy.” (Jackson, 1996) After passage of the Fourth Amendment, courts began to make laws regarding the rule against unreasonable searches and seizures. The courts designed a rule known as the ExclusionaryRule, which provided a remedy for the violation of a suspect’s Fourth Amendment privileges: any evidence seized in violation of the suspect’s rights and protections may not be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution.
The courts have been working and refining the exclusinary rule since its introduction in the 1900’s. (ExclusionaryRule, n.d.) The first case that applied the exclusionaryrule was the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 393, in which the Supreme Court “held that the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence secured through a warrantless search.” (Exclusionary...

... 1
ExclusionaryRule Evaluation
The purpose of the exclusionaryrule is to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. It is also a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment. Some exceptions of the exclusionaryrule is barring the use at trial of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure. Some other exceptions to the exclusionaryrule are: (1) a second, unpoisoned/untainted source had a major rule in finding the evidence, (2) the evidence would have been discovered anyways without the tainted evidence, (3) evidence may be used for impeaching a witness on cross examination, (4) a witness’s identification of the defendant is not excluded if the witness could identify the defendant before an illegal arrest (witness recognizes the defendant from the crime, not from the line up), (5) the rule does not apply to evidence presented in grand jury proceedings, and (6) state agents acted under a good faith belief that they were complying with the Fourth Amendment.
The courts have appeared to agree that there is no rationale for the exclusionaryrule other than the deterrence of future Fourth Amendment violations. There...

...Final Paper
This paper examines the exclusionaryrule. Explains the reasons for the origin of the exclusionaryrule. The paper contends that use of the exclusionaryrule has enabled guilty criminals to go free and that its original intention has been so distorted that it no longer fulfills its intended function and is instead a tool for protecting the rights of criminals Not only how it came about but, the true meaning as well as the exceptions. There are also a number of cases mentioned throughout the paper that have played some role in the exclusionary.
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, “A legal rule that bars unlawfully obtained evidence from being used in court proceedings.” The dictionary provides a basic definition for all to understand however, the definition of the U.S. Supreme Court is more in depth. The U.S. Supreme Court’s definition states, “The name commonly given to the principle that evidence obtained by the government in violation of a defendant's constitutional right may not be used against him. A defendant may prevent the prosecution from using evidence against her by making a “motion to suppress” before trial asking the judge to rule that the evidence is inadmissible.”
The law, 18 U.S.C. sections 3501, provides that courts should weigh a number of factors in deciding whether a statement made by a suspect...